In spite of all of this the doctor is not able to return to his old job after his former employers refused to reinstate him.

This is because the NHS is full of stupid managers.

This case has shocked even politicians too.

Vincent Cable MP said: "Last week one of his former patients, Joan Ramsey, came to my advice surgery very upset at the way he had been treated and with a petition of hundreds of residents who had found him a fine, caring doctor. They are outraged at the way unaccountable bureaucrats were able to pursue a vindictive campaign and ruin his career. They have asked me to help them secure his reinstatement subject to the final determination of the Industrial Tribunal on 30th September. I have also written to Alan Johnson MP, the Health Minister, to ask what action he proposes to take in respect of the Directors of the Trust who were party to the dismissal which the Tribunal concluded was "more reprehensible than crass incompetence."

We are still waiting for Alan Johnson to step in because Kingston Hospital needs heart doctors, not stupid managers.

How many lives will Alan Pearse help? How many patients will he treat? In fact what is the point of having Alan Pearse around at all? Answers on a post card... or you can email your MP.

"The drafting of the charges by Oonagh Fitzgerald, the trust’s former human resources director, was damned as ‘not only imprudent but also dishonourable’."

In the current financial crisis it is clear that the NHS can not afford to have these bureaucrats on board. Its time we got rid of these pen pushers who are bad for patients.

Vincent Cable what are you doing about this?

Unfortunately for the Dr Roberts his colleagues at Kingston Hospital were to cowardly to speak out. His Union the British Medical Association was also toothless perhaps they were busy with other more important things.

Its not like we have that many heart doctors in the UK. We do however have to many failing managers.

Without explanation they have flown in the face of two elementary truths: first, that, before charging someone with breaking a rule, it is necessary to take the precation of ascertaining whether the rule exists; secondly, that it is simply improper to charge anyone, and in particular a professional person, with fraud unless there are cogent grounds.

So complete have been the respondents’ disregard for these fundamental principles of fairness and so apparently deliberate and calculated the unfairness of the entire disciplinary process, that we feel unable to exclude the possiblity that the claimant may have been the victim of something more reprehensible than crass incompetence.

As for the claimant, our findings and conclusions can speak for themselves, but he is entitled to have it expressly recorded that in our judgement the respondents’ attack upon his integrity was not merely unjustified, but shameful."